SA Footy

It's impossible to expect Michelangelo Rucci to ever admit he's wrong, no doubt, but his latest effort on the Magpies situation is an example of shifting sands journalism at its worst. He had enough inside information to write a reasoned and responsible article, but I suppose that doesn't sell papers. That's fine, but he then should accept the criticism that comes with it.

Every day is a different story. Yesterday it was a 6-4 vote, with the unbelievable suggestion that the vote was being 'nobbled'. He said the Magpies wouldn't have a vote, something I pointed out yesterday was wrong. Now he accepts they do have a vote, which makes his original 'nobbling' accusation not only scurrilous, but a nonsense all along, especially when his newspaper reported the day before that the vote from the other clubs would be 0-8.

The problem with writing partisan articles is that you have to shift ground to let the facts fit your agenda and this has been a prime example. Throw in a few facts and embellish it with plenty of biased speculation. Throw in a conspiracy theory, add some potentially libellous comments and some nonsense about the AFL taking over licences over an internal SANFL matter and you have a typical self-righteous article at which the majority of informed readers would be shaking their heads.

Today we've abandoned the 6-4 vote and it's been discovered that the club directors aren't really club directors, they have a higher calling. This wasn't known by Michelangelo yesterday, but today he pompously ridicules some of those directors for also presumably not knowing.

Time doesn't permit further analysis right now, so I'll save that for Part 2.


As I said, posters on here know their SANFL and we deserve better.

PS: In keeping with the agenda, we have a poll result supporting his position. A very independent poll, I'm sure

redandblack wrote:Every day is a different story. Yesterday it was a 6-4 vote, with the unbelievable suggestion that the vote was being 'nobbled'. He said the Magpies wouldn't have a vote, something I pointed out yesterday was wrong. Now he accepts they do have a vote, which makes his original 'nobbling' accusation not only scurrilous, but a nonsense all along, especially when his newspaper reported the day before that the vote from the other clubs would be 0-8.

I note you make no mention of Kerin no longer having a vote .... and the case he is going to take to tonights meeting ? .... didn't suit your argument I guess.
(Also mentioned in the article that there was an attempt to stop the magpies from voting wasn't there ?)

TimmiesChin wrote:

redandblack wrote:Every day is a different story. Yesterday it was a 6-4 vote, with the unbelievable suggestion that the vote was being 'nobbled'. He said the Magpies wouldn't have a vote, something I pointed out yesterday was wrong. Now he accepts they do have a vote, which makes his original 'nobbling' accusation not only scurrilous, but a nonsense all along, especially when his newspaper reported the day before that the vote from the other clubs would be 0-8.

I note you make no mention of Kerin no longer having a vote .... and the case he is going to take to tonights meeting ? .... didn't suit your argument I guess.
(Also mentioned in the article that there was an attempt to stop the magpies from voting wasn't there ?)

if you actually read what r&b wrote, he does mention that there was a suggestion in rucci's article that the maggies wouldnt get a vote, which he also says was wrong. it also says in rucci's article today that Kerin does get a vote and that the maggies do.

I think r&b's point is that rucci is only writing the facts to suit his point. personally i think r&b has summed up ruccis efforts so far this week extremely well!

tipper wrote:if you actually read what r&b wrote, he does mention that there was a suggestion in rucci's article that the maggies wouldnt get a vote, which he also says was wrong. it also says in rucci's article today that Kerin does get a vote and that the maggies do.

This is what Rucci said yesterday about Rob Kerin and magpies getting a vote:

The North Adelaide-led opposition has pushed for affiliated leagues director, Rob Kerin, to be removed from the meeting. He is said to carry a pro-merger vote. His right to vote was challenged at a select strategic meeting of SANFL clubs – minus the Magpies and any league executive – late last week.

If the Magpies, who would inevitably vote for the merger, also were asked to abstain – supposedly out of conflict of interest – the final vote would be 4-4.

This is what is said today:

SANFL legal adviser John Ferguson yesterday concluded Kerin cannot vote because the matter does not involve the affiliated leagues. Kerin will reject this noting if the Magpies fold at year’s end, every footballer in the Magpies’ Eyre Peninsula zone will be affected.
<snip>
Ferguson also ruled the Port Adelaide Magpies can vote. This leaves club president John Firth to move the motion for a merger with the Power. Kerin was to second the motion.

So yesterday he said there were moves to prevent Kerin and Port voting. Today he says John Ferguson has agreed Kerin cant vote, but has ruled that Port can vote. He wouldnt have ruled on either unless the question had been put to him...


Hence - Rucci is consistant in saying there was question raised as to whether Port should get a vote .... this is different to what R&B is saying.
Rucci also says today that Kerin will NOT get a vote (although he will protestthis) ... this is also in conflict with what you suggest above.

Do people honestly believe what the Rooch writes, he is black in one eye and white in the other as i said before Port Adelaide does not give a stuff about anybody else except Port Adelaide, all this guy does is stir the Port pot with innuendo and falsities.

Rulings can often be asked for just to confirm the obvious for the record. There was never any doubt as to the Magpies being able to vote, as I said yesterday.

I actually agree with Rucci about North Adelaide's motives (I have no time for them at all) but their influence is very restricted and I took issue with Rucci using the emotive term 'nobbled' to describe it.

Perhaps you should also read what I said. I haven't mentioned anything about Rob Kerin's vote, only about 'nobbling' accusations. If a club asks whether someone can vote, it's a legitimate question, not an attempt at 'nobbling'.

Ask yourself whether he's written a balanced article or a partisan article.

The answer is obvious.

redandblack wrote:I actually agree with Rucci about North Adelaide's motives (I have no time for them at all) but their influence is very restricted and I took issue with Rucci using the emotive term 'nobbled' to describe it.

He makes it sound like North have sent the heavies around to break everyone's thumbs if they vote yes.

Barto wrote:

redandblack wrote:I actually agree with Rucci about North Adelaide's motives (I have no time for them at all) but their influence is very restricted and I took issue with Rucci using the emotive term 'nobbled' to describe it.

He makes it sound like North have sent the heavies around to break everyone's thumbs if they vote yes.

He needs someone to blame, it's not like Ports financial position could be Ports fault.

Barto wrote:

redandblack wrote:I actually agree with Rucci about North Adelaide's motives (I have no time for them at all) but their influence is very restricted and I took issue with Rucci using the emotive term 'nobbled' to describe it.

He makes it sound like North have sent the heavies around to break everyone's thumbs if they vote yes.

The fact that these so called "clandestine" meetings between the 8 other clubs have been called and chaired by the Glenelg FC President and held at his work place would suggest that the anti North tirade is a little mis-guided? Why is North being labelled with all sorts of accusations re agenda and bullying because they are the only club to have come out publically to say they don't support a merger of any SANFL club with an AFL club?

redandblack wrote:
I actually agree with Rucci about North Adelaide's motives (I have no time for them at all)

We can tell by your "reviews" of North/West games in recent years.

Wedgie wrote:

Barto wrote:

redandblack wrote:I actually agree with Rucci about North Adelaide's motives (I have no time for them at all) but their influence is very restricted and I took issue with Rucci using the emotive term 'nobbled' to describe it.

He makes it sound like North have sent the heavies around to break everyone's thumbs if they vote yes.

He needs someone to blame, it's not like Ports financial position could be Ports fault.

Which Port ?

The Magpies? ... their financial position is a direct result of starting with almost nothing 13 years ago at the insistence of the SANFL - who wanted to maintain a Port presence in the SANFL.
Having to spend to move to Ethelton, and having to share revenue pool with Power. I'd guess that if any other comp had had their entire asset base stripped - they would be going through similar problems to Port.

their membership and attendances are as good or better than any other SANFL club, so its not this to blame - its their off field revenue streams that are the issue.

How did North turn this around .... werent they 'gifted' a pub by Rob Gerrard ?

the Power ? ... their financial position is more of their own issue, but the amount of money stripped from them and the Crows each year is an issue.

If each of the SANFL clubs is getting a $425K dividend from the SANFL each year can you tell me where the SANFL is getting this $4.5+ million ? A fair chunk is coming directly from the two AFL entries. I suspect they have simply set the level of money they take at a level too high for Port to cope with. (Worst stadium deals in the country are for the two SA based sides)

North turned it around by taking out loans to pay for fit outs, leases and moves whilst at the same time making smart business decisions. North weren't offered any mergers with an AFL club, North weren't allowed to have a years dividend in advance, North weren't allowed to borrow anything against their share if the SANFL. North didn't lay the blame at anyone they just smartly and diligantly turned things around using nothing but their own people and resources. To their credit they've paid off more than half that debt already and can still show half a million dollars in profits on top of that.

Port wanted an AFL team and hence they accepted the conditions attached to it. Port made the decision, noone else, all fault is Ports.

If they hadn't we probably would have had a much more financially successful second AFL team and a much more successful Port in the SANFL and everyone would be better off.

All fault is Ports, I want the Maggies to survive but some people bleating away and laying the blame on everyone except for the people that created their own mess is actually harming their cause more than helping it.

Wedgie wrote:North turned it around by taking out loans to pay for fit outs, leases and moves whilst at the same time making smart business decisions. North weren't offered any mergers with an AFL club, North weren't allowed to have a years dividend in advance, North weren't allowed to borrow anything against their share if the SANFL. North didn't lay the blame at anyone they just smartly and diligantly turned things around using nothing but their own people and resources. To their credit they've paid off more than half that debt already and can still show half a million dollars in profits on top of that.

Port wanted an AFL team and hence they accepted the conditions attached to it. Port made the decision, noone else, all fault is Ports.

If they hadn't we probably would have had a much more financially successful second AFL team and a much more successful Port in the SANFL and everyone would be better off.

All fault is Ports, I want the Maggies to survive but some people bleating away and laying the blame on everyone except for the people that created their own mess is actually harming their cause more than helping it.

Did North get basically handed a pub or not ?
If so - how much of their yearly profit is a direct result of this facility ?
Its easy to take out loans when you have assets to borrow against....

People blame Port for entering the AFL, but when the second license came up for bidding, every single SANFL club wanted a piece of it. And when Port finally got it (admittedly I doubt the decision was ever in doubt) they made it as hard as possible for them to survive.

Now either the two Ports are one, and hence should be able to function together, or they are seperate - in whcih case I dont understand the grudge against the magpies.


All I'm saying is people are quick to slam the pies for struggling financially - but not a signle club in the comp would be in a good position in todays climate if they had started on a shoestring in 97.

TimmiesChin wrote:
Did North get basically handed a pub or not ?

No.

TimmiesChin wrote:Did North get basically handed a pub or not ? .

No, and neither did Sturt, Norwood, Woodville or West Torrens.

TimmiesChin wrote:Its easy to take out loans when you have assets to borrow against....

It's the responsibility of every club or business to build these assets for themselves though ... Surely you have to give North credit for keeping the wolves at bay and addressing their situation before they had nothing to borrow against (whether that be asset or guarantee - both were/are still resources of the club)

I think your point has some merit TC, the Magpies did start behind the 8-ball, but it's not as if they havent had more than a decade to address/improve the situation.

TimmiesChin wrote:the SANFL - who wanted to maintain a Port presence in the SANFL.

Er.. no. It's been established time and time again that it was Port who wanted to maintain a Port presence in the SANFL.

BTW: who the hell is handing out these pubs? I want one.

Constance_Perm wrote:I think your point has some merit TC, the Magpies did start behind the 8-ball, but it's not as if they havent had more than a decade to address/improve the situation.

Spot on, but it's everyone else's fault still according to Port fans.

I have to laugh when they call the SANFL "greedy" on one hand then want to keep every AFL dollar for themselves (and that includes Crows fans). I want to know how they plan to fund junior footy and who will do all the ground work if they want to stop the SANFL and it's constituent club's source of income. If there are people wanting to SANFL to stop receiving an income from the AFL clubs, then please refrain from drafting any local players.

The Sleeping Giant wrote:

redandblack wrote:
I actually agree with Rucci about North Adelaide's motives (I have no time for them at all)

We can tell by your "reviews" of North/West games in recent years.

You obviously didn't read them, TSG.

Even the North supporters said they were fair

Even your own supporters have no time for your board, either.

redandblack wrote:

The Sleeping Giant wrote:

redandblack wrote:
I actually agree with Rucci about North Adelaide's motives (I have no time for them at all)

We can tell by your "reviews" of North/West games in recent years.

You obviously didn't read them, TSG.

Even the North supporters said they were fair

Even your own supporters have no time for your board, either.

He was taking the piss R&B and what do expect when you make a flippant comment about having no time for North - what is that based on in any case - '91 GF? And yes there are times when a large number of North members / supporters have had issues with the board and the Processes they undertake however I think 99 percent of North members support the North No stance re this merger.